Page 346 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.35), in reply: I thank Mr Humphries for his support. It looks likely that we will pass this legislation in a fairly short time this evening. I think we should reflect that, while we have dealt with this legislation fairly quickly, that in no way should diminish the significance of this measure. In some ways this piece of legislation really completes the constitutional structure of the self-governing ACT. Getting the judiciary right was always the most difficult issue. Mr Humphries referred, in his opening remarks, to a fairly agitated state in which the judiciary found itself just before self-government. There was a lot of concern and a lot of fear from various sections of the judiciary that they could become some sort of political plaything in this presumably irresponsible and erratic, new, funny little parliament that had been established in the ACT.
The process by which we have transferred the responsibility for the superior courts to the Territory's jurisdiction and then gone about creating judicial commissions legislation, I think, reflects credit on the whole chamber. This would have been a very easy issue for members to play some partisan politics about. When I was in opposition I avoided that process, and Mr Humphries in opposition also has avoided that temptation, and I think that is very important. A judicial commission is something that is often sought in other parts of Australia. We have dealt with this in a consultative manner. We produced a discussion paper and a draft Bill over a year ago. We went out for extensive discussion with the community on a sensitive area.
We discussed the issue of judicial tenure with the judges and with the Law Society and in this Assembly we have come up with a package that seems to have the broad support of members opposite and Independent members.
I am very pleased that the Opposition has accepted the Government's point of view on one issue in particular, and it is a very significant issue for the way the community sees this chamber and the way we as members see this chamber. As I pointed out in the introductory speech, the issue that attracted the most calls for change - and there were some quite strong views from the judiciary, the Law Society and the bar - was the issue of the removal majority. There were some quite strong calls to suggest that there needed to be a two-thirds majority. We rejected that because we felt, as Mr Humphries pointed out, that a very comprehensive process would be gone through before we got to the issue of a removal majority. There was also the view that to some extent that call for a two-thirds majority could be seen as a slight or reflection on the competence of this chamber.
It came from a suggestion of Commonwealth officers before self-government. It was perhaps premised on the suggestion that this would be a funny, erratic little parliament with peculiar members who would go off on frolics of their own, and the judiciary would be under challenge if that were allowed to occur. So there needed to be a higher removal majority than the Parliament of the Commonwealth applies for the removal of Commonwealth judicial officers, or the parliaments of New South Wales or Queensland have adopted for removal of New South Wales and Queensland judicial officers. We felt that there was a significant principle at stake there. We had to assert that, in the final year of the Second Assembly, this is a parliament that exercises its powers in a responsible manner, and this is a parliament the community should have sufficient confidence in to expect that it will not act in a capricious manner.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .